GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.

You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!

Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.

Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.

Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide

This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.

That's an insanely bold statement. Can you really prove that?
Normally computer neural networks take input and produce output. Brain operates in a loop. Also, as far as I know computers are not capable of sentience, thinking or generic learning. All neural network can do is adapt neural connections so based on expected input it will provide expected output and generalize, if possible. Yes, it is "kind of" learning, but it is incredibly limited compared to humans/animals. Also, it can't "grow", so adaptation is very limited.

You shouldn't reduce human to a mere machine. As far as I know, an insect is smarter than today's computer. All computer can do is calculate very fast, and that's about it.

Humans take input, too (through our five senses), as well as producing output (outward behavior). As far as "operating in a loop", that just refers to our ability to self-reflect and revise our "programming", which is (or at least can be) every bit as mechanistic as a self-modifying computer program. The only real difference is in complexity; the human brain is vastly more complex than any current artificial neural network. Difference in complexity/size != difference in fundamental nature.

Humans take input, too (through our five senses), as well as producing output (outward behavior).

You don't get the difference. (AFAIK) Neural network provides output immediately, so there are no "background thoughts" or knowledge about previous state of the network. The difference is fundamental and huge - neural network doesn't think. It provides immediate response, but that's it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCode

As far as "operating in a loop", that just refers to our ability to self-reflect and revise our "programming", which is (or at least can be) every bit as mechanistic as a self-modifying computer program. The only real difference is in complexity; the human brain is vastly more complex than any current artificial neural network. Difference in complexity/size != difference in fundamental nature.

This is completely unconvincing and hard to be taken seriously. Are you a programmer? Can you provide algorithm for sentience? How about neural network that can "think" in background and make decisions? You'll have to provide something like that, otherwise I'll have to discard your argument as an unconvincing personal belief.
Artificial sentience and "generic artificial intelligence" is the only thing I don't even know how to start implementing in code, so if you think that humans and computers are that similar, you'll have provide something (other than your opinion) that would support your argument. So far it sounds like you greatly underestimate humans.

David Spiegel of Princeton University and Edwin Turner from the University of Tokyo have published a paper on arXiv that turns the Drake equation upside using Bayesian reasoning to show that just because we evolved on Earth, doesn’t mean that the same occurrence would necessarily happen elsewhere;

To an objectivist, empirical view, the rules of Bayesian statistics can be justified by requirements of rationality and consistency and interpreted as an extension of logic. Using a subjectivist view, however, the state of knowledge measures a "personal belief".

Astronomers estimate that there are 100 billion galaxies in the universe. If you want to extrapolate those numbers, that means there are around 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 (50 quintillion) potentially habitable planets in the universe.

How do they know it is 100b or 1T galaxies?
Did they count it one by one?

Just out of curiosity, when it is established beyond any doubt that there IS life of some sort out there (bacteria on Mars or whatever), how will that impact your belief? Will you accept that your religion is wrong on a very major point and reconsider your beliefs? Or will you continue to believe that life is only on Earth and say that the Martian bacteria is just a hoax or terrestrial contamination or something?